The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

03 Aug 2015 8:28:10am

Text

PreviousMessage

It may be great apologetics but it's complete bollocks: The Bible is the only reference we have to Saul persecuting the church and then becoming Paul the champion of the Church: Without external validation there is no proof that Paul existed. The same can be said for the miracles etc i.e. The only proof for the Bible and its authenticity is the Bible itself - no other independent accounts exist to give veracity to these claims. The Bible was not even agreed on in its current form until 400 years after these events supposedly took place - so I guess the questions "Which Bible?", "Which Gospels?" also come to mind. The great thing I learned in becoming atheist is that I don't have to twist an existing argument to fit the available evidence. I'm happy to change my views based on good quality evidence. The Bible fails the test of reproducibility - i.e. noone raises the dead or walks on water - and has been shown to be just plain wrong. What I'm saying is most of the arguments "for" God in this blog are premised on the Bible as"the word of God" and are probably quite impressive if that premise holds true. However, it is not and cannot be demonstrated to be so and therefore, as I said in the beginning, all the apologetic sophistry based on it is complete bollocks